FACTS:

The respondent-assessee, engaged in executing civil works contracts, sought guidance on the rate of tax applicable for the execution of civil works contracts under the KVAT Act. The AAR initially held that, since there was no specific entry providing for the rate of tax on works contracts up to March 31, 2006, tax on goods used in the execution of works contracts should be levied in accordance with the rate of tax applicable to the sale of goods under the KVAT Act 2003.

ISSUES:

Interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) and (b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Applicability of the uniform rate of tax to goods involved in works contracts before April 1, 2006.

HELD:

Section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, imposes a liability to pay taxes and prescribes the rate of tax. The specific rates of tax for goods falling within the Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules were outlined in Section 4(1)(a). "Other goods" attracted a rate of 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b).

It would be far-fetched to assume that Section 4(1)(b) intended to prescribe a uniform rate of tax for goods incorporated in a works contract before April 1, 2006. The KVAT Act did not provide a uniform rate of tax before April 1, 2006, on goods involved in the execution of works contracts. The amendment introducing Section 4(1)(c) in 2006 mandated a uniform rate of tax on goods involved in works contracts as provided in the Sixth Schedule.

The interpretation of the provisions of the Act before April 1, 2006, is consistent with the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature. Section 4(1)(b) did not provide a uniform rate of tax for goods involved in works contracts.

The dispute arose from proceedings before the AAR seeking guidance on the applicable rate of tax until March 31, 2006. The decision clarifies the issue of interpretation, emphasizing that issues of a factual nature will be adjudicated in the course of assessment proceedings.

The State legislature could provide uniform rates of tax on goods involved in works contracts, and the Karnataka legislature did so with effect from April 1, 2006.

Facts:

The appellants and their family were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries in their village.

The prosecution alleged assault due to old enmity, leading to charges under various sections of the IPC.

The defense argued denial of the occurrence, presenting an alternative version where the injuries on the accused resulted from an attack on their family members.

The trial court convicted the appellants, but the High Court set aside some convictions and found them guilty under Section 308/34 IPC.

Issues:

Suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and failure to explain injuries on the accused.

Legitimacy of the appellants' claim to the right of private defence.

Adverse inference against the prosecution for not offering a plausible explanation for injuries on the accused.

Held:

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not drawing adverse inferences against the prosecution despite the suppression of the genesis of the occurrence and the failure to explain injuries on the accused, including the death of the father. The Court held that the appellants could legitimately claim the right to use force in defense of their parents, especially when the assault led to the death of their father. Adverse inferences must be drawn against the prosecution, and the Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and ordered their release from jail custody.

FACTS:

The appellants, Bijender @ Papu and another, along with three co-accused, were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 325 read with Section 149, Sections 148A, 308/149, and 323/149. The Trial Court imposed a sentence, and the High Court, on appeal, enhanced the punishment for the major offence.

ISSUES:

The appellants claimed parity with three other co-accused who were granted relief on grounds of old age.

The High Court had enhanced the sentence based on the suffering of the injured Budhram with a head injury caused by a lathi.

The appellants sought a reduction in the sentence.

HELD:

The Court observed that the concession granted to the three co-accused on grounds of extreme old age justified special treatment. The enhanced sentence was due to the suffering of Budhram, the injured, with a head injury caused by a lathi. However, as no specific role was assigned to any of the five convicts in causing the head injury, the Court decided to reduce the sentence for the appellants under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC from five years to three years RI. The amount of fine and conviction and sentence for other offences remained intact.( Para 4)

With the modification in the sentence for the appellants, the appeal was disposed of.( Para 5)

Facts:

The case involves a writ petition (criminal) filed by Dr. Rini Johar and another against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The petitioners, a doctor and a practicing advocate, faced charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. They were arrested without following proper arrest procedures and later enlarged on bail. The petitioners alleged a demand for bribe by police officials and violations of Cr.P.C. provisions.

Issues:

Violation of arrest procedures and curtailment of liberty.

Alleged offenses under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act.

Compliance with Cr.P.C. provisions, specifically Sections 41 and 41-A.

Applicability of public law remedy.

Held:

Initiation of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution should not impede the determination of the violation of arrest procedures and curtailment of liberty. The State Government's inquiry does not bar adjudication, and the matter is within the scope of judicial review.( Para 11)

The inquiry report reveals the arrest was not conducted following the prescribed procedure under Section 41-A CR.P.C. Several violations in arrest and seizure were noted, justifying the petitioners' claim of mistreatment.( Para 22)

The arrestees, both a doctor and an advocate, were treated with serious disregard for their dignity. Liberty was curtailed unlawfully, causing emotional distress. The court emphasizes the sanctity of individual freedom and the need for proper arrest procedures.( Para 23)

Considering the totality of circumstances, a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is granted to each petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the suffering and humiliation endured. The State is entitled to proceed against the erring officials.( Para 27)

The Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-A(b) of the IT Act, but the latter was struck down. The dispute is deemed of a civil nature, and the attempt to criminalize it is criticized.( Para 28)

No ingredients of Section 420 IPC are established, and the court asserts that even if a wrong occurred, civil action should be pursued. The case doesn't warrant criminal prosecution, and the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.( Para 29)

Facts:

The three lady appellants, along with two men, were accused in a case involving various offenses. The trial court convicted all accused, and the High Court affirmed the decision. The appeal contended that contradictions in the victim's statements were not properly considered, and the defense of the appellants was overlooked.

Issues:

Contradictions in the victim's statements regarding the actions of the lady accused.

Applicability of Section 149 of the IPC to the appellants.

Adequacy of medical evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of an injured witness's testimony, especially when there are circumstances suggesting potential false implication. The Court found errors in the analysis of evidence by both lower courts, particularly in not considering the specific defense raised by the appellants. The medical evidence did not support the specific allegations against the appellants.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence against the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted of all charges due to the benefit of doubt. The Court emphasized the need for a more careful consideration of evidence in cases involving potential false implication.

Facts:

The appellants made a payment totaling Rs. 14,89,349.00, taking into account the duty payable under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the cum-duty benefit. An additional amount of Rs. 11,19,775.00 was payable if the benefit of a specific notification was applied.

Issues:

The extension of the benefit of cum-duty price, the invocation of a wrong section or rule in the show cause notice, and the eligibility of the appellant for treatment under Section 3(1) of the Act.

Held:

The benefit of cum-duty price was not extended, and the incorrect invocation of a section or rule in the show cause notice did not bar the imposition of a penalty under the correct rule or section. The expression "allowed to be sold in India" in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act applied exclusively to sales in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) of production by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) as per the provisions of the Exim Policy. Consequently, the assessee (appellant) was held liable to pay excise duty as per Section 3(1) of the Act.

Decision: The appeal stands allowed in favor of the appellant.

Facts:

Mohammad Sadique, the appellant, born to Muslim parents, faced a challenge to his election in an Assembly Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste.

The election petition alleged that, being a Muslim, Sadique did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and was ineligible to contest from the reserved constituency.

Issues:

The appellant's family background and their association with the 'Doom' community.

Validity of the Scheduled Caste Certificate obtained by the appellant after converting to Sikhism.

Public declaration of the appellant's conversion to Sikhism and the absence of objections during the nomination process.

The interpretation of the terms 'Caste' and 'Scheduled Caste' in the context of the case.

Held:

The appellant successfully demonstrated that, despite being born to Muslim parents, his family belonged to the 'Doom' community, recognized as a Scheduled Caste in Punjab (Para 22).

The Scheduled Caste Certificate, issued post-conversion to Sikhism, was accepted by the Returning Officer and remained uncancelled (Para 22).

The appellant's conversion to Sikhism was publicly declared, and he adhered to Sikh traditions. The absence of objections during the nomination process was noted (Paras 23, 24, and 26).

The court affirmed that a person can change their religion, not the caste, as caste is linked to birth. The appellant's eligibility as a Scheduled Caste member was upheld (Para 22).

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, determining that the Election Petition lacked merit. Mohammad Sadique's election was deemed valid and not subject to being set aside (Para 26).

Facts:

The case involves land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, culminating in the passing of awards on different dates.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, specifically addressing the lapse of land acquisition proceedings when possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid within the stipulated time frame.

Held:

The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Delhi Development Authority, upholding the High Court's decision that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The Court emphasized that, according to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector must take possession of the land for it to vest absolutely in the Government. Since the land had not been taken possession of within five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the Court concluded that the proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

FACTS:

An Insecticide Inspector seized a sample of Dimethoiate 30% EC from a shop in Rajasthan.

The sample was declared misbranded after analysis by the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory.

The accused, M/s Northern Minerals Ltd., submitted a reply indicating their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the Analyst's report.

Complaint filed, and cognizance taken by the Magistrate.

Accused appealed, challenging the order of cognizance.

ISSUES:

Whether the accused's right to rebut the Analyst's report was valid.

The impact of the expiration of the sample's shelf life on the accused's defense.

HELD:

The court interpreted Sections 22 and 24 of the Insecticides Act, emphasizing the accused's right to challenge the Analyst's report. It concluded that the accused, even if not the person from whom the sample was taken, has the right under Section 24(4) to adduce evidence in controversion. The expiration of the sample's shelf life was considered crucial, and the court held that the accused's right to disprove their guilt had been frustrated. The proceedings were quashed. The instant appeal is allowed.

REFERRED CASES:

Northern Mineral Limited Vs. Union of India, (2010) 7 SCC 726.